If evolution is true, then why religion? And why would the radical atheists be so much against it? If evolution, then would not all that exists be the result of blind, random processes, and there be nothing that exists that we could say “should not be here” for it came to be through evolutionary processes. We are told that all human structure, everything from physical features to personality traits, are the result of blind evolutionary processes. If evolution, then blind and random natural selection ensures that what exists today came to be through the evolutionary process, and is a normal part of the world.

Therefore, why religion? If evolution, then religion must exist for a reason that fits into our survival, for it is too widespread…..almost every culture has religion. What evolutionary process would it serve?

And more importantly, if evolution produced religion, then why are the radical atheists fighting so hard against it? If evolution, then (1) religion has come to be for a purpose that fits into natural selection, and (2) religion will either naturally die out through evolutionary processes, or continue since it aids survival. Natural selection will either encourage it or weed it out of the population. If evolution has created religion, then is it not the atheist who is rejecting the natural order of things?

So why are the radical atheist evolutionists so vehemently fighting against religion? Some atheists press the point that what they really have is “A-theism” which is the lack of belief. If this is true, why do we have the Richard Dawkins of the world fighting so hard against belief? Why do these guys tell us that religion is dangerous and needs to be eliminated?

Methinks they protesteth too much. Could it be that the real reason that the radical atheist evolutionists fight religion so hard has to do with personal bias and hatred because their personal values will be called into question by religion? Could it be that they are using evolution to reject God and reject religion?

If they really were taking a cold, non-biased view of science, and if they really believed evolution from an objective viewpoint, they would believe that evolution caused religion and would not have any more emotion about it than they do about people with anxiety disorders and bad eyesight. But the fact is that they’re quite upset at religion, and are actively trying to wipe it out. From what I know about human perception and motivation, their emotion tells me that their real reason has to do with something in the Christian message that they reject personally. It does not take a microbiologist or theologian to figure out what that might be.

Whether evolution is true is another topic entirely. It has its own logical problems, not the least of which is that they have effects without a cause, and that “chance” is not a causal force.

5 Responses to If Evolution, Why Religion?

Discoveries in just the field of microbiology clearly demonstrate the fallacy of evolution; the human cell, which was thought of in Darwin’s time as a gelatinous mass, has been shown to be a complex mechanism that could not have evolved but could only function in its present, fully developed, form. Embracing evolution is requiring an ever greater leap of faith to compensate for the increasing body of scientific data that is accumulating against it.

Although I disagree with evolutionary theory, I thought I’d point something out.

You wrote: “If evolution, then would not all that exists be the result of blind, random processes, and there be nothing that exists that we could say “should not be here” for it came to be through evolutionary processes”.

You may already know this, but:

From what I have read, I don’t think evolutionary theory actually assumes the processes of existence to be “random”.

From what I understand of readings (and I could be wrong) it seems that instead the assumption is that:

The processes of evolution are based on survival. Evolution is therefore a product of the environment and circumstances, and not considered to be truly random. It is guided by survival within the environment and interactions.

This presupposition raises all sorts of questions regarding what started this drive for survival.

I disagree with the premise of evolution, but it is important that when critiquing a belief system that the belief is not misrepresented.

That being said, This is something I have just read, and I could be wrong.

What I wrote above was a summary based on my understanding on what I had read regarding evolution, and I could have misunderstood these readings. It could be possible that some forms of evolutionary theory assume a “random” process, but from my understanding I think this is not as likely.

One issue with evolution is that there are multiple levels to the explanation. It covers much ground, from biology to paleontology to geology to astrophysics, and many sub-fields within these general categories. Therefore in a popular level, there is agreement on what evolution is, but in the technical fields, there is not general agreement on specifics. I believe it was the book Darwin On Trial that pointed out the many disagreements on the definition of natural selection. On the popular level, the biological mutations are indeed held to be random. The process for promoting or weeding out the traits is as you said, a result of the systematic evolutionary process. But the process is not supposed to have a point or a goal, not supposed to be working toward a purpose. In that sense, it is random. It is not random in the sense that physics and chemistry works in a structured way, such as heavy objects all try to fall downward.